Association of the Inlay Structure Used in the Modified Bristow Procedure With Accelerated Bone Union: Comparing the
Shuhan Zhang1,2,3, Qingfa Song1,2,3, Min Zhang4
1Department of Sports Medicine, Peking University Third Hospital, Beijing, China.
Background:
The Chinese unique inlay Bristow (Cuistow) procedure is a modified Bristow surgery in which an inlay (mortise-and-tenon) structure is added to the contact surface between the coracoid tip and the glenoid. Patients who have undergone the Cuistow procedure have had satisfying clinical performance and excellent postoperative bone healing rates (96.1%).
Purpose:
To compare the clinical and radiographic outcomes after the arthroscopic Cuistow procedure and the arthroscopic Bristow procedure.
Study Design:
Cohort study; Level of evidence, 3.
Methods:
A total of 91 patients who underwent either the Cuistow or Bristow procedure between January 2017 and March 2018 were selected, and 69 patients (70 shoulders; 35 in the Cuistow group and 35 in the Bristow group) were included. Clinical assessment at minimum 24 months postoperatively, including the visual analog scale for pain and instability, American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons score, Rowe score, subjective shoulder value score, and active range of motion, was completed by independent observers and compared with values collected preoperatively. Assessment with 3-dimensional computed tomography scans was performed preoperatively; immediately after the operation; at 3, 6, and 12 months postoperatively; and at the final follow-up.
Results:
A total of 69 patients (70 shoulders) were included, with a mean follow-up duration of 34.41 ± 5.99 months (range, 24-50 months). Both groups saw significant improvement in visual analog scale for pain and instability, American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons, Rowe, and subjective shoulder value scores at the final follow-up compared with the preoperative values (P < .001 for all), with no significant between-group differences on any clinical outcomes at the final follow-up. The 3-month postoperative graft union rate on computed tomography was significantly higher in the Cuistow group compared with the Bristow group (82.9% vs 51.4%, respectively, P = .003), although the graft union rate at the final follow-up was not significantly different (94.3% vs 85.7%, respectively; P = .449).
Conclusion:
Patients receiving the Cuistow procedure had equivalent clinical outcomes and a significantly higher bone union rate at 3 months postoperatively than those in the Bristow group. The inlay structure used in the Cuistow procedure was found to be associated with accelerated bone union.
